IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uflowp/15648.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost-Benefit Analysis of a WTO Dispute

Author

Listed:
  • Javelosa, Josyline C.
  • Schmitz, Andrew

Abstract

Since the WTO's inception in 1995, the number of cases it has dealt with has exceeded the number of disputes under the GATT. This suggests that Members have found the WTO dispute settlement system a useful means to pursue their interests. In this paper, we analyze an ongoing WTO dispute to illustrate the economic and political costs and benefits that accrue to parties when they engage themselves into the formal dispute process. We draw on the Philippine-Australian case, which challenges the latter's quarantine policy on fresh fruit and vegetables, to understand further how the WTO dispute settlement system affects state behavior and litigation patterns. This particular case is also of keen interest to a number of countries, including the EC, US, Canada, Ecuador, Thailand, China, India and Chile.

Suggested Citation

  • Javelosa, Josyline C. & Schmitz, Andrew, 2004. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of a WTO Dispute," Working Papers 15648, University of Florida, International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uflowp:15648
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.15648
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/15648/files/wp040003.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.15648?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uflowp:15648. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iatpcus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.